HOFFMANN INVESTORS CORP v. Gerald J. Caliendro, Defendant. (2006)

 Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered November 22, 2005, which granted defendant-respondent's motion for an order cancelling a notice of pendency, with related relief, and for partial summary judgment dismissing that portion of the complaint seeking an injunction directing removal of a retaining wall and cessation of further work, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 There was no evidentiary support for a finding that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm substantially outweighing injury the injunction would cause defendant-respondent (see Matter of Angiolillo v. Town of Greenburgh, 21 A.D.3d 1101, 1104, 801 N.Y.S.2d 629 [2005] ).   The record discloses no non-speculative ground to support a finding that defendant's rebuilt retaining wall presents a danger to plaintiff that would warrant mandating the expensive and difficult work required to remove the rebuilt wall and build yet a third wall.   Upon weighing the relative circumstances, the motion court properly found that the encroachment of 1 1/212 to 3 3/434 inches onto plaintiff's property is de minimis (see Generalow v. Steinberger, 131 A.D.2d 634, 635, 517 N.Y.S.2d 22 [1987], appeal dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 928, 524 N.Y.S.2d 435, 519 N.E.2d 346 [1987], and lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 616, 526 N.Y.S.2d 436, 521 N.E.2d 443 [1988];  Christopher v. Rosse, 91 A.D.2d 768, 769, 458 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1982] ).   With only plaintiff's claim for money damages remaining, the notice of pendency was properly cancelled (see Ola Contr. Co. v. Guild Capital, Inc., 285 A.D.2d 382, 383, 727 N.Y.S.2d 308 [2001] ).